 | This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sockpuppet of
Dolyn (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
logs ·
block log ·
arb ·
rfc ·
lta ·
SPI ·
cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by first reading the
guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 17:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC) |
- Help - I have tried to appeal this block but without success and am floundering in the dark. What did I do? DickyP ( talk) 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
DickyP ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There appears to be no reason why I should be blocked- granted I haven't edited anything since 2022, but that's no reason. DickyP ( talk) 11:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Nonsense. A reason was clearly given, higher up on this page. Yamla ( talk) 11:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
DickyP ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't see how I can appeal being a sock puppet - I'd never heard the expression until I was blocked: I've only ever had the one account and have made a few edits over the years and several talk contributions. My only point of appeal can be - 'I'm not a sock puppet' as I've no idea what behaviour the administrator has seen that might have led to this decision.. DickyP ( talk) 15:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I suggest that you review the information(and links) on your user page. It's also possible that this could be meat puppetry. 331dot ( talk) 19:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
DickyP ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have reviewed all 87 contributions I have made to Wikipedia since 2012 and can't see anything that even hints at the definitions I can find for sock puppetry (including meat puppetry) on the various links available. All my contributions are simple factual ones, apart from possibly opinions on Christmas Pudding! This whole process is somewhat Kafkaesque in that I have no idea of what it is I'm supposed to have done that constitutes sock puppetry . DickyP ( talk) 08:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. SQL Query Me! 04:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
DickyP ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am still confused as I have at no stage done anything to damage or disrupt Wikipedia, and under no circumstances would I do so. All that has happened is that after 11 years of occasional contributions, mostly talk, and many months after my last contribution someone has suddenly decided that my account is a sock puppet. How can I address the reason for my block as there is evidence or behaviour that would constitute a good reason. No support to odd groups or other users, no controversial opinions, no bad language or polemicism. I consider all my contributions to be factual, or where opinions described as such. I would continue to make similar contributions. DickyP ( talk) 19:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Yamla, NinjaRobotPirate, Girth Summit, Jpgordon, I get the feeling that this user got caught in a dragnet, a possibly wide one caused by a prolific socker given the large range (p-blocked for vandalism) they're operating from. I looked at a bunch of Dolyn socks and their contributions, and I don't think DickyP belongs to that group. Drmies ( talk) 22:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- If you think so, an unblock is fine with me. I don't think I ever used CU on this editor. I only checked for PaullyMatthews socks on March 16. The block would have been triggered from behavioral evidence, not CU evidence. I don't remember what it was now, though. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 23:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I was only looking for positive confirmation, and I didn't find any (which is why I didn't decline after checking.) --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
OK--DickyP, I will grant your request. It seems that your edits were likely/really too similar to that of a blocked editor/vandal/returning nuisance. My advice to you is simple, and it related to edit summaries. Explain the edits you make in an edit summary, in some detail--vandals are less likely to do that, and it's simply good manners to do so. Second, everyone's language in edit summaries is, to some extent, individual, and it might serve to distinguish your work from that of others. Good luck, Drmies ( talk) 01:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks but I still appear to be blocked at the moment.
DickyP (
talk) 16:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Please let us know what message you are getting. This account is not blocked; there is an anon-only rangeblock on a couple of articles, but that should not affect you. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
|
| This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sockpuppet of
Dolyn (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
logs ·
block log ·
arb ·
rfc ·
lta ·
SPI ·
cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by first reading the
guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 17:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC) |
- Help - I have tried to appeal this block but without success and am floundering in the dark. What did I do? DickyP ( talk) 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
DickyP ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There appears to be no reason why I should be blocked- granted I haven't edited anything since 2022, but that's no reason. DickyP ( talk) 11:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Nonsense. A reason was clearly given, higher up on this page. Yamla ( talk) 11:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
DickyP ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't see how I can appeal being a sock puppet - I'd never heard the expression until I was blocked: I've only ever had the one account and have made a few edits over the years and several talk contributions. My only point of appeal can be - 'I'm not a sock puppet' as I've no idea what behaviour the administrator has seen that might have led to this decision.. DickyP ( talk) 15:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I suggest that you review the information(and links) on your user page. It's also possible that this could be meat puppetry. 331dot ( talk) 19:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
DickyP ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have reviewed all 87 contributions I have made to Wikipedia since 2012 and can't see anything that even hints at the definitions I can find for sock puppetry (including meat puppetry) on the various links available. All my contributions are simple factual ones, apart from possibly opinions on Christmas Pudding! This whole process is somewhat Kafkaesque in that I have no idea of what it is I'm supposed to have done that constitutes sock puppetry . DickyP ( talk) 08:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. SQL Query Me! 04:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
DickyP ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am still confused as I have at no stage done anything to damage or disrupt Wikipedia, and under no circumstances would I do so. All that has happened is that after 11 years of occasional contributions, mostly talk, and many months after my last contribution someone has suddenly decided that my account is a sock puppet. How can I address the reason for my block as there is evidence or behaviour that would constitute a good reason. No support to odd groups or other users, no controversial opinions, no bad language or polemicism. I consider all my contributions to be factual, or where opinions described as such. I would continue to make similar contributions. DickyP ( talk) 19:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Yamla, NinjaRobotPirate, Girth Summit, Jpgordon, I get the feeling that this user got caught in a dragnet, a possibly wide one caused by a prolific socker given the large range (p-blocked for vandalism) they're operating from. I looked at a bunch of Dolyn socks and their contributions, and I don't think DickyP belongs to that group. Drmies ( talk) 22:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- If you think so, an unblock is fine with me. I don't think I ever used CU on this editor. I only checked for PaullyMatthews socks on March 16. The block would have been triggered from behavioral evidence, not CU evidence. I don't remember what it was now, though. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 23:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I was only looking for positive confirmation, and I didn't find any (which is why I didn't decline after checking.) --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
OK--DickyP, I will grant your request. It seems that your edits were likely/really too similar to that of a blocked editor/vandal/returning nuisance. My advice to you is simple, and it related to edit summaries. Explain the edits you make in an edit summary, in some detail--vandals are less likely to do that, and it's simply good manners to do so. Second, everyone's language in edit summaries is, to some extent, individual, and it might serve to distinguish your work from that of others. Good luck, Drmies ( talk) 01:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks but I still appear to be blocked at the moment.
DickyP (
talk) 16:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Please let us know what message you are getting. This account is not blocked; there is an anon-only rangeblock on a couple of articles, but that should not affect you. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)